Heaphy vs The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland

This case involved the plaintiff Heaphy seeking various declaratory orders, injunctive relief, and damages against the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland. The court dismissed the claims, finding no reasonable cause of action and identifying the proceedings as an abuse of process.

TLDR:

• Heaphy sought multiple reliefs against Bank of Ireland, including claims related to a property and the Bank's conduct post-2008.
• The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the claims, arguing they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were bound to fail.
• The court found in favor of the Bank, dismissing the claims and denying Heaphy's motions.
• The court also refused Heaphy's motion to add co-defendants, finding it misconceived.

The plaintiff, Heaphy, initiated proceedings against the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, seeking declaratory orders, injunctive relief, and damages. The claims included issues related to the ownership of a property in Cork, the Bank's conduct post-2008, and alleged breaches of the Competition Act 2002.

Heaphy filed two motions: one for judgment in default of defense and another to add co-defendants. The Bank responded with a motion to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were bound to fail, and were statute-barred. The Bank also sought to vacate a lis pendens registered by Heaphy over the property.

The court first addressed the Bank's motion to dismiss. The Bank argued that Heaphy's claims had already been subject to final determinations in previous proceedings and were statute-barred. Additionally, the Bank contended that Heaphy had no locus standi in relation to the matters he complained about.

The court reviewed the litigation background, noting that Heaphy had previously been involved in multiple proceedings against the Bank, including summary judgments and orders for possession of the property. The court found that Heaphy's current claims re-agitated arguments already rejected by the Supreme Court and other courts.

Heaphy's claims of breaches of competition law and international financial reporting standards were found to be legally unsustainable. The court emphasized that Heaphy had no standing to complain about the Bank's conduct that did not directly affect him. The court also noted that Heaphy's claims were statute-barred, as the relevant information had been in the public domain for several years.

The court dismissed Heaphy's motion to add co-defendants, finding it entirely misconceived. The court noted that Heaphy had no basis for a cause of action against the Bank's current or former auditors and that his true purpose was to trigger an investigation into the Bank's conduct rather than pursue a legitimate claim.

Ultimately, the court struck out the entirety of Heaphy's claim pursuant to Order 19, rule 28(1) of the Rules of the Superior Court, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was bound to fail, and was an abuse of process. The court also refused Heaphy's applications for judgment in default of defense and to join co-defendants.

Legal representatives: Heaphy represented himself.

Judicial Panel: Mr. Justice Rory Mulcahy

Case Citation Reference: [2024] IEHC 123